Why is XTOL so good

MattKing · Mar 16, 2019

jnantz said:
I don't know about that, a lot of it had to do with how when Kodak came out with their dilution guidelines they would suggest people dilute it 1:10 and in the end
there wasn't enough developer in the dilution to develop the film. If you look at current ( or post 2002 ? ) guidlines they don't even mention 1:10, 1:8.1:6 dilutions. I have no clue the reason why they stopped selling the 1L packages .. Maybe PE will chime in and opine about the "ascorbate" being the problem.

Sorry John,
The 1998 datasheet was the one that gave times for more dilute versions of X-Tol, but it didn't go past 1:3 dilution.
Here is a link: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf

Paul Verizzo · Mar 16, 2019

jnantz said:
I don't know about that, a lot of it had to do with how when Kodak came out with their dilution guidelines they would suggest people dilute it 1:10 and in the end
there wasn't enough developer in the dilution to develop the film. If you look at current ( or post 2002 ? ) guidlines they don't even mention 1:10, 1:8.1:6 dilutions. I have no clue the reason why they stopped selling the 1L packages .. Maybe PE will chime in and opine about the "ascorbate" being the problem.

It's my understanding that the early releases suffered from iron and other mineral intrusions. It's why they add chelating agents now.
As you say, PE will set us straight.

removed account4 · Mar 16, 2019

MattKing said:
Sorry John,
The 1998 datasheet was the one that gave times for more dilute versions of X-Tol, but it didn't go past 1:3 dilution.
Here is a link: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf

Matt: Is that the same datasheet they originally published for this developer ? I distinctly remember seeing a Kodak Publication about hyper dilute Xtol, and remember conversations with a friend who was trying to convert me...
Thanks for the upload, if I can dig mine up I will post it to this thread.

Maybe it was more user error than developer having problems. Like people not using enough developer to process film. I can't tell you how many times I have read about people using minimal amounts of developer in rotary processors and hand tanks. Not sure if it is because they need/want to be thrifty but sometimes it leads to troubles.

Paul Verizzo · Mar 16, 2019

And it could be those rare earth magnets held by our heads....................

Or too much wine in the darkroom.........

mshchem · Mar 17, 2019

I've used XTOL since it came out. Before that I used HC-110 replenished Dilution B.
When I was shooting a lot of outdoors, old buildings, signs, architecture, people all existing light. I became addicted to 120 TMY and XTOL 1:1. Back then I did everything by hand in a Paterson tank. I think, for my kind of shooting XTOL is amazing. Now that I have picked up 3 different Jobo processors, I use XTOL stock undiluted, still get fabulous results. XTOL can be used in machines, rotary, hand tanks . I don't know the whole story ,but Kodak took out a patent on the stuff so back in the day it must have been deemed worthy of protection. I am quite opinionated on following the guidelines put out by the manufacturer. According to Kodak's charts, XTOL is their best film developer. I've never had it go bad, I always use deionized water.
But if you don't like mixing powders, there's plenty of great alternatives, including Rodinal, HC-110, etc. Rodinal has been around since the beginning, I'm sure there's a very good reason why.

mshchem · Mar 17, 2019

MattKing said:
Sorry John,
The 1998 datasheet was the one that gave times for more dilute versions of X-Tol, but it didn't go past 1:3 dilution.
Here is a link: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j109-1998_04.pdf

I'm not sure if it matters ,but keep in mind the times are for TMY not TMY-2. That's a good chart, I'm going to print that out, I think I still have a print of that somewhere.

removed account4 · Mar 17, 2019

mshchem said:
I've never had it go bad, I always use deionized water.

You are lucky LOL. Mine didn't go bad, it just didn't do what I wanted. There was no vroom .. oh well
.. it was still fun to watch the orange go clear when mixed ! Its almost worth buying ( low contrast negatives and all ) just to mix Part A and Part B together

pentaxuser · Mar 17, 2019

Yes it is a bit like a kid's chemistry set where the "experiments" in the book produced some amazing results with colours. From great looking Orangeade ( I'd have drank it 69 years ago) to clear water in a matter of a few seconds. Great entertainment and does it job as well, at least in my case

pentaxuser

Photo Engineer · Mar 17, 2019

Alan Johnson said:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306225024/http://silvergrain.org/Photo-Tech/ascorbate-dev.html
Ryuji Suzuki did most research on this when he was attempting to improve it.

And, he failed.

jim appleyard · Mar 17, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
And, he failed.

Why?

Photo Engineer · Mar 17, 2019

I have no idea. Product was introduced and then withdrawn from the market.

The original Xtol had birthing problems itself. Without the weight of EK behind it, it might have failed as well.

PE

jim appleyard · Mar 17, 2019

Thanks, PE. I looked for a reason in the article, but couldn't find one.

Alan Johnson · Mar 17, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
And, he failed.

Ryuji comments on his "improved" Xtol DS 10 here,May 18 2005:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/ds-10-and-apx100.167032/
It only worked with some films,presumably making it homebrew only.

trendland · Mar 17, 2019

alanrockwood said:
From a technical/mechanistic perspective, what is it about XTOL that gives it such a favorable overall profile as a developer, such as combination of low grain, sharpness, and high speed? Is it the use of ascorbate, or is it the use of a phenidone derivative, or does it have something to do with pH or sulfite concentration? What about other factors? Or is it just some magic balance of factors that makes it so good?

Alan - to answer directly your question : Xtol is "so" good because many (most) like it so much!
It is relative : You also could have ask : Why is perceptol so far better in comparison to Xtol?
But then you possible would get many protests from the folks!
So let me state : the characteristics Xtol is specialized (advantage in regard of speed, sharpness,
edge effects, accentuated grain from a relative small size [compared with Rodinal], normal contrast
ARE to the same time THE characteristics what many photograpers WANT today!
Here Xtol is superior in comparison to ALL other developers! (in a most relative concern)!
At last Xtol is cheap AND "easy to handle"!
But if you like other characteristics from a developer you soon will have other statements to Xtol!
Ask people who are specialized with stain developers :" Why do you use that stuff - there is Xtol avaible and with Xtol you can get much better characteristics " - they will protest of course!
So Xtol is Allways such superior like the characteristics it serve are the characteristics MOST
photographers like to see at the same time!

A last example :

Meritol by Johnsons - a super fine grain developer superior in relation to Xtol !
But at the time it was on the market Meritol had exact the characteristics most photograpers wanted to see from a bw developer - regarding the advertising "for miniature films" aha!
For what ? 35mm films????
During this period Meritol was a best selling developer of Johnsons photograpers had the need of
enough resolution with 35mm films!
So today you have to look on developers Allways also in regard of todays films !
It seams to be so that Xtol there reached a best corelation with modern best selling films!
It you shot ISO 25 films (what is a niche inside a real minority) some (as stated here) find Xtol's
characteristics not absolute attractive!
But who is using ISO 25 films? The most speed from Xtol is not the central point then!
So Xtol is "good" if you are shooting ISO 400 films? One can say so!
BTW : What is the most demanted box speed with bw films at this moment ?
ISO 400 - and there you have it!

with regards

PS : Your question "Why is Xtol so good" could also be "Why is Xtol so popular"!
PPS : From the technical side Xtol is the " modern" D76 (with alternate agents)!

NB23 · Mar 17, 2019

Ko.Fe. said:
It just takes time to get to HC-110. Take your time, OP.
D-76, XTOL and then it all in hcB.

I asked about it one person who used to print bw darkroom prints for clients and developed film everyday, for clients.
We were at the same page, HC-110.

Hc-110 is easy

Ko.Fe. said:
It just takes time to get to HC-110. Take your time, OP.
D-76, XTOL and then it all in hcB.

I asked about it one person who used to print bw darkroom prints for clients and developed film everyday, for clients.
We were at the same page, HC-110.

Well yeah, if you do it for clients and everyday, hc-110 is a no brainer. Comes out cheaper and easier to use.

But if you’re in it for the sheer quality and technical details, x-tol is the best.

Let’s put it this way (in my case): you’re an agency and you ship me to Africa with 200 rolls of film and you want 40 16x20 fb fine art prints of the very best quality from this trip.
What do I do?

I use Xtol.
Hc-110 would be fine, but xtol is best.

pentaxuser · Mar 17, 2019

I note that in his book in the 1970s "Zone VI Workshop" Fred was a big fan of HC110. As may have been his wont his endorsement of HC110 was maybe slightly over the top but was he still active in photography when Xtol was around? He died in April 2002 after a long illness so even if Xtol was around his illness may have prevented him from trying it out but it was around from 1996 so that was 6 years before

Maybe he did try it and still preferred Xtol?

pentaxuser

NB23 · Mar 17, 2019

jnantz said:
Its super hard to over develop anything in Xtol, basically it makes EVERYTHING look flat. I've exposed something like that 3 stops over, and developed it for 4x the time
and it still came out flat ...

Flat negatives?
Molesting negatives and expecting anything good out of them?
If at least you were a chemist, would have added some credibility to your “findings”.

That has to be the joke of the day, thanks for the laugh

Richard Man · Mar 17, 2019

re: "high dilution XTOL"
Recall that one needs around 80ml of stock solution per each roll. So a 1+10 would be close to 1 L of working solution just for one roll!

I have not read anything about higher than 1+3 dilution. Indeed, I have read a few cautionary tales against even 1+3, but whether that are anecdotes or "scientific" analysis, I do not know.

I use 1+2 if the tank + number of films can hold it. Otherwise, I use 1+1.

Richard Man · Mar 17, 2019

pentaxuser said:
He died in April 2002 after a long illness so even if Xtol was around his illness may have prevented him from trying it out but it was around from 1996 so that was 6 years before
pentaxuser

I don't know Mr. Picker, but I highly doubt anyone who has used a developer for decades and know its characteristics like the back of their hands would want to try a newfangled soup.

removed account4 · Mar 17, 2019

NB23 said:
Flat negatives?
Molesting negatives and expecting anything good out of them?
If at least you were a chemist, would have added some credibility to your “findings”.

Huh ?
Over a number of years I would shoot Tri x and TMY and would bracket exposure. I would process handfulls of rolls, similar subjects and lighting each roll, in Xtol stock, 1:1 and 1:2. I would start at "given times" ( from my Data Sheet ) and then would have increased development by 30 % each time sometimes doubling the original stated development times.
The rolls would never increase in contrast and were flat. Over the years when I moved to different locations, my water supply changed as well, 4 different places, distilled water too; and still no change in contrast. If that is molsesting negatives, yes NB23, I am guilty of that. I suppose anyone who does routine film and developer tests to ID what ISO, Time &c for a new to them Developer is "molesting" their film too.

The person ( someone who printed for me ) who first told me about Xtol when it was first released
suggested I use it ( this was back in 96? ). She went to a trade show and met the Team/Kodak Developer Scientists who invented the developer, and she warned that it was going to give me flat negatives, and from my own multi year experiments with the magic brew, she wasn't kidding.

When I switched back from Xtol to Sprint Film Developer, GAF Universal, Ansco130, Dektol no comparison,
they had no trouble building up contrast and density.

Not sure what being a Chemist has to do with saying Xtol produces flat negatives. I suppose if anyone says anything negative about a film or paper or developer, in order to give credibility to their commentary they have to be a chemist?
No, I'm not a Chemist but I did take classes in general Chemistry and I know how to note observations.
I'm glad Xtol works for you, but I would never do an assignment like you mentioned with it.

Sure I could easily print my film to look just as contrasty as your uploads are, I would have had to use #4, #4 1/2 and #5 filters < sigh > but I don't like thin film.

Yup most of photography is a joke, chasing magic bullets &c. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it is fun ...

Photo Engineer · Mar 17, 2019

And, they are not a husband and wife team!

No, really, Sylvia and Dick are not married, and have only a professional relationship.

PE

Tom Kershaw · Mar 18, 2019

I've not had a problem with flat negatives and XTOL and I live in England so deal with photographing in flat light fairly often.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2019

Photo Engineer said:
And, they are not a husband and wife team!

No, really, Sylvia and Dick are not married, and have only a professional relationship.

PE

Thanks for correcting me, I fixed/edited my entry
My printer told me they were married OOPS!

Rudeofus · Mar 18, 2019

John, there's a non-trivial chance, that this "won't increase contrast beyond some limit" thing is an intentional feature built into XTol to give it its otherwise excellent image properties. Such a blessing can, of course, turn into a curse if you are after contrasty negatives.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2019

Rudeofus said:
John, there's a non-trivial chance, that this "won't increase contrast beyond some limit" thing is an intentional feature built into XTol to give it its otherwise excellent image properties. Such a blessing can, of course, turn into a curse if you are after contrasty negatives.

YES !!
I realized that after I spent so much time fitting a round peg in a square hole LOL!
At least I got good at bracketing exposures and development so not all was lost
I suppose I could always go back to Xtol and process it with Ann Sheridan (you know, and add a little "oomph" to it)
like I do with DsumatranolC or Sumatranol130, but I have like 40 or 50lbs of green coffee beans in my garage I have to use up first.

John

Richard Man said:
re: "high dilution XTOL"
Recall that one needs around 80ml of stock solution per each roll. So a 1+10 would be close to 1 L of working solution just for one roll!

Hi Richard Man

Seems one needs 100cc / roll/sheet &c
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000LNS
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?12664-Expert-drum-Xtol-and-Ilford-film

Have Fun !
John

Why is XTOL so good

MattKing

Moderator

Paul Verizzo

removed account4

Paul Verizzo

mshchem

mshchem

removed account4

pentaxuser

Photo Engineer

jim appleyard

Photo Engineer

jim appleyard

Alan Johnson

trendland

NB23

pentaxuser

NB23

Attachments

Richard Man

Richard Man

removed account4

Photo Engineer

Tom Kershaw

removed account4

Rudeofus

removed account4

Why is XTOL so good

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency